You're right. A strategy exists. The issue isn't a lack of strategy. It's just that we need more right now. We react a great deal, but we need to start planning more for the long term.

In terms of implementation, many resources have been allocated to specialized services. However, what's being done to help family doctors, for example? That's why we wanted to take action at the level of small towns. No small town can put $5 million into a trajectory‑changing initiative.

We also really need to look at certain issues. We know that we can take action on four fronts to really reduce substance use. These fronts are price, advertising—in the case of legal substances— accessibility and attitude. How can we change attitudes? For example, we just learned that, in Ontario, more young people aged 13 to 15 are using substances compared to last year. Why is use on the rise? Is it a culture issue?

Why do some countries in Europe, for example, have fentanyl on the scene, but have never faced the same level of drug problem? Why don't some parts of Canada have this issue? It's about implementation, but also about targeting needs. Of course, fentanyl trafficking must be stopped. However, we must also look at the parts of the country that don't yet have a fentanyl issue. Why isn't more work being done in those areas? In Vancouver, it isn't necessarily possible to change the situation. However, fentanyl still isn't very prevalent in many places in Quebec, for example. The same applies to eastern Canada.

The key is to hold discussions in order to focus on the right things. It's also important to support the implementation of measures across the board. Instead of giving resources to specialists and specialized services, it's necessary to help general practitioners. It's important to take action in both the medical sector and in the social services and education sectors, for example.

Transcript

Discussions (0)